Poll: Evolution Yay or Nah?

[lacktheknack]

Macro evolution is a theory, which means nothing can conclusively prove it. ("a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. ")So far, all of the missing links and early humans, like Lucy, have been fake. (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html) Carbon dating showing ages is unreliable.(http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/radiocarbondating.html ) The embryos shown in every textbook have been proven to be inaccurate and misleading (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html) So, no, I don't believe in macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, which concerns changes in a single population, is a proven fact.

Haeckel's embryos were faked (and it's kind of disgraceful how many people don't realize this), and I'm aware that "Missing Links" are a great business in some parts of the world, but carbon dating being unreliable? That's kind of a bizarre thing to come up with (if C14 is slowing down its decay process, why?).

Although if those stories in that link are true (like the 1300 year old freshly-killed seal), this will piss off a LOT of people I know.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Oh god, the semantics. I can say "I believe in evolution" and expect the full intent and implications behind those words to be completely understood. Any misinterpretation on the part of others is willfully made by those that would attempt to undermine my way of thinking by whatever petty means they have at their disposal, and damned if I'm going to rearrange my way of speaking just to preempt their childish shit.

So yeah, I believe in evolution.

 

[A.A.K]

eh. I believe god created what was necessary for the bare essentials and then everything did it's thing in it's own time.

 

[Varitel]

Science is awesome. It's correct whether you believe it or not.

Science, though awesome, isn't always correct. Theories do come and go all the time as they are proven or disproven. In general, science could not progress without people questioning it. In this case though, I see your point. Most of the people arguing against evolution are not publishing scholarly papers in scientific journals, and a lot of the arguments are not based in hard science.

 

[lawrie001]

Macro evolution is a theory, which means nothing can conclusively prove it. ("a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. ")So far, all of the missing links and early humans, like Lucy, have been fake. (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html) Carbon dating showing ages is unreliable.(http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/radiocarbondating.html ) The embryos shown in every textbook have been proven to be inaccurate and misleading (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html) So, no, I don't believe in macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, which concerns changes in a single population, is a proven fact.

I would just like to point out that macro-evolution has a lot of evidence behind it, most notably being speciation, this is the process of a single species undergoing an event which causes another species to arise from that. From your post I am concluding you believe in natural selection but not speciation e.g. a species can change over time but not so much that it becomes a separate species. If you look at Fig Wasps for example that is a very good example of speciation and thus macro-evolution as Fig Wasps have speciated radically to pollinate fig trees (roughly two-three wasp species for each tree). If I am getting your post wrong then please correct me.

Edit: Believing in God doesn't mean you can not accept evolution to be fact as shown by the above post. God could of started it all off, evolution does not disagree with that, but guided evolution is not in anyways evolution, not trying to piss anyone off but please if you are putting yes and then stating you accept guided evolution you are skewing the poll.

 

[juraigamer]

Evolution is a fact. A proven fact.

Religion is a belief, since you can't prove it. Same with how some believe there is life on other planets, no facts support this.

Also haters gonna hate.

I know evolution. Evolution is fact. Belief and Faith don't come into it. You can disbelieve gravity, go test how well that goes for you when you walk off a cliff.

Amen.

Preach it brother!

 

[The Heik]

I want to judge how many people on the escapist believe in evolution, I myself think of it as a fact due to the amount of evidence given towards it and that there is no other viable theory on how life changes over time or how the myriad of species came about. If you have a reason why you do or don't believe in it then please express that reason, be it due to sole opinion or religious views.
I would however want one rule to be upheld on this topic, do not try to change someones views because you think they are wrong, you may express why you think your view is correct but you can not say or deem anyone else's view is wrong (within reason, sorry I am biased and if anyone here is a creationist then I myself might go bit too much against you as I will admit I am prejudice against them, not in a violent way or anything just in a 'want to make them see there wrong' way and for that I am sorry).

First of all evolution is not a form of belief, it is a hypothesis based upon the observations in this world that species share with other species both past and present. Second of all, while I don't deny the possibility of an advanced being taking part in the creation of some stage of life, the process of evolution has already been proved on a small scale by humans, namely via animal breeding.

Breeding animals is the process of selecting individuals of the same species who contain the desired physical and mental traits that the breeders are looking for, then making them mate, with the offspring hopefully inheriting those traits. Breeds like the Chihuaha, Poodle and Spinx Cat are products of this process, none of them having a single record of existence 2000 years ago.

In a nutshell it's forced evolution, with the breeders replacing Mother Nature as the terms by which a being can survive. Granted this is a short term and incredibly localized process compared to the real creation of a new species, but it still points out that an entire new creature can be created via messing with the parameters that their predecessors live and propagate by.

 

[UltraXan]

Guys, stop getting technical about the word "believe". Ffs, the question is simple: Which do you find is more correct, creation, or evolution. This isn't some kind of court hearing where we have to define things. Anyway, I'm an evolutionist. To me, *anything* that involves god is either false or blown way out of proportion. Whereas a theory with a great deal of supporting facts that explains how pretty much anything comes to be with time is much more believable.

Simple fact is, I'm a guy who purely believes in science and technological advancement. Anything that sounds magical, divine, or otherwise mystical in some way is automatically labeled ridiculous, absurd, and irrelevant. In my eyes, gods are impossible, our accession to gods through our own means and understanding of the universe is.

 

[The Clinger]

Oh god, the semantics. I can say "I believe in evolution" and expect the full intent and implications behind those words to be completely understood. Any misinterpretation on the part of others is willfully made by those that would attempt to undermine my way of thinking by whatever petty means they have at their disposal, and damned if I'm going to rearrange my way of speaking just to preempt their childish shit.

So yeah, I believe in evolution.

Seriously guys, look up definitions of words before you argue against them.

 

[lawrie001]

Someone's after their Hot Topic badge.

Wasnt actually going for it (please trust me on that ) just wanted to conduct an experiment to get some idea of peoples view on evolution on the internet. Using this as a sample of the overall consensus of the developed world (I know how small of a sample it is and thus unreliable but always thought it was 50-50 if im honest).

 

[Frankie Villanueva]

How about C. Jesus Christ, *****!

 

[Jamash]

Since I'm not a scientist and only have a layman's understanding of all of the factors involved, while I do generally accept evolution and won't contest it with anyone, there are a few facets that I can't quite get my head around (e.g. I don't fully accept the "Out of Africa" theory), so a part of my acceptance of Evolution is based on faith (a blind faith that what I've learnt about Evolution is factually correct).

 

[webby]

Macro evolution is a theory, which means nothing can conclusively prove it. ("a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact. ")So far, all of the missing links and early humans, like Lucy, have been fake. (http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html) Carbon dating showing ages is unreliable.(http://www.archaeologyexpert.co.uk/radiocarbondating.html ) The embryos shown in every textbook have been proven to be inaccurate and misleading (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html) So, no, I don't believe in macro-evolution. Micro-evolution, which concerns changes in a single population, is a proven fact.

Macro evolution is many, many instances of micro evolution based on a single origins species that diversifies to a variety of areas and thus receives a variety of stimuli causing differing changes to the genome to be more or less beneficial and therefore allowing different mutations to remain in different areas. Then over the course of many, many generations these changes to the genome become significant enough to cause offshoots from the same species to become noticeable difference on a physical and not just genetic level and also results in said offshoots no longer being compatible to procreate.

This debate wearies me, every time the same arguments are passed around without a single bit of ground being given either way. So far comparisons to gravity, micro vs macro, carbon dating errors and "guided" evolution have all been brought up, maybe a new one will arrive soon.

Speaking of "guided" evolution, I've never fully understood this concept. Evolution effectively states that genetic mutations that benefit the species will survive to pass on their DNA whilst the others will die out. This effectively means that evolution is "guided" by the environment said species is evolving in. It seems odd to claim that this is actually false and that a divine being is actually guiding the evolution, but doing it in such a way that even evolutionary traits that are clearly derived from human interference are accounted for. That just doesn't seem logical.

 

[vesago]

I want people to understand somthing I don't beleive in eveoltion the same way i don't beleive in gravity wether i think it's true or not it's real i can't just jump of a bridge and fly ... biology needs eveolution biology dosn't work without evolution

 

[mOoEyThEcOw]

Are you using a computer? Do you use google? An operating system? Play video games?

Then you use programs based off of the principles of evolution every day. Don't accept evolution as fact? Then get off the internet.

 

[lacktheknack]

Speaking of "guided" evolution, I've never fully understood this concept. Evolution effectively states that genetic mutations that benefit the species will survive to pass on their DNA whilst the others will die out. This effectively means that evolution is "guided" by the environment said species is evolving in. It seems odd to claim that this is actually false and that a divine being is actually guiding the evolution, but doing it in such a way that even evolutionary traits that are clearly derived from human interference are accounted for. That just doesn't seem logical.

The idea is that God started with a pack of cells and had humans in mind. Surely you're not suggesting that every "naturally guided" evolution path would end up with humans.

 

[OrenjiJusu]

I am confident in Evolution as a fact, because i do not beleive that any deity, creul or benevolent, would create this imperfect race with its delusions of grandeur that i am sometimes ashamed to call my own.

 

[lacktheknack]

Are you using a computer? Do you use google? An operating system? Play video games?

Then you use programs based off of the principles of evolution every day. Don't accept evolution as fact? Then get off the internet.

That was such a bad example. Every single one of those things is manmade. Evolution of ideas, maybe, but those don't represent biological evolution in any way. Think your examples through.

Also, welcome to the Escapist.